Subscribe By Email

Worthy Causes


October 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

« "Too Late To Apologize" | Main | New York Times publishes anti-Muslim ad paid for by Freedom From Religion Foundation »

Thursday, July 03, 2014


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Marvin Decker

Or 4. Rush is right, the Pope is Socialist.

The pope is certainly not pro free markets (aka unfettered capitalism), seems against Communism (pure Socialism), so is somewhere in between, aka a Socialist of some stripe and is talking like that. This is a problem, this hurts people. This blog should know better.

All the name calling doesn't amount to much of an argument, if the Pope doesn't want to come off as Socialist, he should be clearer.

In my opinion, Jesus would have been a libertarian, aka, all help to the poor would have been private, voluntary, an opportunity for good or evil.

Nowadays, if you're Catholic, you vote Democrat so you get to go to Heaven because you helped the poor, apparently. Paying no mind that you're using violence against others to help them, it's just violence (double meaning intended).


Look, the Pope is not infallible in matters of economics or current events: he is infallible in matters of faith and morals. Thus, he can make mistakes of judgment in discussing economics or current events. Past popes have made mistakes in practical matters, sometimes disastrous mistakes. Infallibility offers no protection from inadequate information, poor judgment, or even just simple mistakes in practical matters. Every word said by every pope is not absolutely faultless, and frequently what the current pope says is also misrepresented by the news media.

Rush Limbaugh obviously is not infallible. I enjoy listening to Rush, but I don't expect that he will never ever make a mistake! Also, Rush Limbaugh is not a Catholic or even an ex-Catholic, and theology is not his area of interest or expertise. I do not hear him engaging in the usual forms of anti-Catholic garbage; are we to expect a non-Catholic to agree with the Pope in all things, including things that aren't "faith and morals"?

Plenty of leftists (both Catholic and non-Catholic) have been happy to say that they assume that the Pope is one of themselves, and while I believe that that to some extent they are mistaken, should we be surprised when an anti-leftist takes their word on this, especially since he isn't a Catholic himself?

Let me just mention that I've known many Catholics who seem to believe that Catholics are required to be socialists in order to be considered true Christians. Many of them are also pro-choice and are very offended at the recent Hobby Lobby decision in the Supreme Court. These are people who go to church and identify themselves as Catholics. (At my children's Catholic high school, not a single teacher voted for a pro-life candidate. Not one.)

I find that more disturbing than the idea that Rush Limbaugh may be mistaken about something the Pope said.


I too have known many Catholics who eschew, even abhor, Catholic teaching and so we can agree in part Ladyhobbit that this is more troubling than Limbaugh's mistaken notions about the Pope.

What is more personally troubling however is Limbaugh's unfairness in dealing with the totality of what this Pope stands for. He seems purposeful in not giving the benefit of the doubt. He seems to willfully be painting this Pope as something he clearly is not and is coming across as ignorant as to basic Catholic teaching yet if I've come to know anything about Limbaugh it's that he's far from ignorant.

My hope is that ignorance is to blame here. If it is not, it is most troublesome.

Mr. Decker, to proclaim that Christ was a libertarian is to proclaim that you know nothing of Him. Libertarianism has come to me to mean pure selfishness. How in hell you could lay that down as a characteristic of the Son of God is beyond my comprehension.

Marvin Decker

Rick, your close mindedness in painting libertarian as selfishness, is disappointing. Libertarianism as freedom is how I would describe it. Your arrogance in knowing Him, is also disconcerting. My point that people are given free will, using government to force people to make a moral choice is an evil, and I think Jesus would have been against it, thus Jesus would have shamed men into doing the right thing without the force of government, thus have been libertarian on this issue.

I'm sure soon you'll be supporting an increase in minimum wage and efforts to combat income inequality to help the poor, which of course it doesn't, but you'll convince yourself that it does, because the Pope says it it must be so. Before you object, yes the Pope has implied that income inequality is an evil, and if he had said that it was ONLY up to the individual business owners to share the wealth, but he did not, he referred to world leaders, and that's just going to hurt so many people.

If I were cynical about this Pope (I am a cynical person, but not about the Pope as of yet), one could argue that he's taking steps to produce more poor, to ensure the future success of the Catholic church's mission.


Marvin, a kite is considered a symbol of sorts of freedom by many and yet, its freedom to fly and soar is actually only made possible by the tether that links that kite to the ground.

Religion, particularly the Catholic religion for me, provides the tether that allows me to fly like a kite, soaring in the freedom that comes from taking on the yoke of Christ.

Yes, it's paradoxical. A yoke is not usually associated with freedom. This particularly a problem for libertines.

My understanding of libertarianism is that freedom trumps. Freedom without tethers. Freedom to do whatever you'd like to do.

Libertarians I know will not condemn certain acts that Catholics will, if they adhere to Catholic teaching. I think of hot button issues like abortion, homosexuality and gay marriage, contraception, divorce, etc. Libertarians I know are also less likely to be supportive of such things as economic justice, subsidiarity and solidarity or the obligation to care for the poor.

There was a time when libertarianism had an appeal for me. Then I grew up. Or more particularly and perhaps less bluntly, I grew into my Catholic faith.

You Marvin may have problems with this Pope's views on income inequality but I hope you'll come to recognize that in reality, you'd have the same problems with his two predecessors and with many who preceded them, this because in reality, you have a problem with Catholic teaching, this most evidenced by your last cynical and rather bigoted statement.

Let's agree that the Pope is definitely doing that which supports and advances the Church's mission. Let's acknowledge that we're miles apart on what that mission is and that this distance is largely the direct result of your embracing libertarianism over Catholic doctrine and my doing the exact opposite.

Marvin Decker

I see nothing bigoted in what I said, please explain.

In regards to Libertarianism and Catholicism, I see no inherent conflict, Libertarianism, is a government and social structure regarding the laws, Catholicism is personal.

Would you convert someone to Catholicism via the force of government? I would hope not, therefore should you codify Catholicism in the laws? No you should not, otherwise you're no better than a Sharia led nation, irrespective of how true your Truth is.


I see now that I might've misunderstood this statement: "If I were cynical about this Pope (I am a cynical person, but not about the Pope as of yet), one could argue that he's taking steps to produce more poor, to ensure the future success of the Catholic church's mission."

I see anyone who would suggest that the Catholic Church's or the Pope's mission is to produce more poor as a statement steeped in bigotry at most, complete ignorance at best.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


Tip Jar

Plainly Offsetting Costs

Search Brutally Honest

  • Google




Creative Commons License

Plainly Quotable